From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linus.walleij@linaro.org (Linus Walleij)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 18:07:22 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] gpio: add a custom configuration mechanism to gpiolib
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=o-2ML0MxNXa0SsFm8JQ1D+_4Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1303315216-14852-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com>
	<BANLkTi=o-2ML0MxNXa0SsFm8JQ1D+_4Zxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimy4zREJyAmtOVEMUSObxWBaJk8Xg@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Stijn Devriendt <highguy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why contain all values in the config rather than
> // Actual config
> #define GPIO_CONFIG_BIAS 0x1
>
> #define GPIO_BIAS_UNKNOWN 0x0
> #define GPIO_BIAS_FLOAT 0x1
> #define GPIO_BIAS_PULL_UP ? ? ? 0x2
> #define GPIO_BIAS_PULL_DOWN ? ? 0x3
> #define GPIO_BIAS_HIGH ? ? ? ? ?0x4
> #define GPIO_BIAS_GROUND ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x5
> #define GPIO_BIAS_ARCH_SPECIFIC 0x100
>
> #define GPIO_CONFIG_DRIVE 0x2
> /// omitted rest
>
> #define GPIO_CONFIG_COMPLEX_SAMPLE 0x3
> struct gpio_complex_sample_config
> {
> ?// whatever here
> };
>
> // code:
> gpio_config(10, GPIO_CONFIG_BIAS, GPIO_BIAS_FLOAT);
> struct gpio_complex_sample_config config = { ... };
> gpio_config(10, GPIO_CONFIG_COMPLEX_SAMPLE, &config);

It doesn't work like that, since the gpio_config() function has this
signature:

gpio_config(unsigned gpio, u16 param, unsigned long *data);

If you want to pass two parameters you need to store the second
parameter in a variable and pass a pointer to that:

unsigned long data = GPIO_BIAS_FLOAT;
gpio_config(10, GPIO_CONFIG_BIAS, &data);

Well you COULD do this:

gpio_config(10, GPIO_CONFIG_BIAS, (unsigned long *) GPIO_BIAS_FLOAT);

Which leads to inventing pointer-cast macros like we have
for PTR_ERR() and similar to stash enumerators into the
pointer... and since a corresponding get_* operation will
not pass data in the pointer but an actual pointer it gets
awfully asymmetric.

So compared to enumerating and passing simply one argument
and NULL:

gpio_config(10, GPIO_CONFIG_BIAS_FLOAT, NULL);

I think this is less ugly than either of the two above.

Since this is a little bit of matter of taste, I will drive it in the current
version unless there is an massive choir of "no" from all directions.

Yours,
Linus Walleij